Evangelicals rethink nuclear weapons: Ratify CTBT; "New scientific studies reveal"; much more...

[bananas]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/guest-voices/post/evangelicals-rethink-nuclear-weapons/2011/11/22/gIQAn27g8N_blog.html

Posted at 09:42 AM ET, 11/29/2011
Evangelicals rethink nuclear weapons
By Leith Anderson, Dennis Hollinger, John Jenkins and Jo Anne Lyon

<snip>

As leaders in the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE), we believe thoughtful application of evangelical principles and consideration of the current realities support:

• Re-examining the moral and ethical basis for the doctrine of nuclear deterrence
  
  
• Maintaining the taboo against nuclear use
  
  
• Achieving verified mutual reductions in current nuclear stockpiles
  
  
• Ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
  
  
• Increasing safeguards against accidental use
  
  
• Resolving regional conflicts
  
  
• Preventing the unauthorized spread of fissile material
  
  
• Continuing dialogue on the effects of possession and threatened use of nuclear weapons
  

<snip>

We question the acceptability of nuclear weapons as part of a just national defense. The just war tradition admonishes against indiscriminate violence and requires proportionality and limited collateral damage. New scientific studies reveal that even a limited nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan would have profound global consequences, harming billions of innocents. The very weapons meant to restrain evil could potentially destroy all that they were intended to protect.

<snip>

Leith Anderson is the president of the National Association of Evangelicals. Dennis Hollinger is President of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. John Jenkins is Senior Pastor of First Baptist Church of Glenarden. Jo Anne Lyon is General Superintendent of The Wesleyan Church. The authors are members of the Board of Directors of the National Association of Evangelicals, which at its October 13 meeting passed a resolution on nuclear weapons, on which the foregoing is based. The full resolution is available at www.nae.net.

By Leith Anderson, Dennis Hollinger, John Jenkins and Jo Anne Lyon | 09:42 AM ET, 11/29/2011

I want to point out some items from the article because I have some links handy:

• "the very existence of nuclear weapons may be more of a liability than an asset." ...
  "We question the acceptability of nuclear weapons as part of a just national defense."
  
  Those are two very important statements.
  The Global Zero campaign is getting people to ask that question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Zero_%28campaign%29
  
  
• 
  "Increasing safeguards against accidental use"
  
  This may refer to the work of Martin Hellman showing a deterrence failure rate of 1% per year.
  Do we really want the future to consist of nuclear war every hundred years?
  See Martin Hellman's website: www.nuclearrisk.org
  
  
• 
  "New scientific studies reveal that even a limited nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan would have profound global consequences, harming billions of innocents."
  
  This probably refers to a number of studies over the past few years by Alan Robock and others.
  
  See Alan Robock's page http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/nuclear/ which has much more information,
  especially his recent Nature article "Nuclear winter is a real and present danger" where he states:
  

  "Use of a fraction of
  the global nuclear arsenal by anyone, from
  the superpowers to India versus Pakistan,
  still presents the largest potential environmental
  danger to the planet by humans."

  
  (direct link to pdf: http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/NatureNuclearWinterComment.pdf )
  
  

[OKIsItJustMe]

1. This may interest you

http://www.umc.org/site/c.lwL4KnN1LtH/b.4668521/k.FE5D/Council_of_Bishops_In_Defense_of_Creation.htm
http://archives.umc.org/interior.asp?ptid=4&mid=1038

[bananas]

3. Thanks

I think many of us here would agree with the "three interconnected global threats":

Download High-Resolution Video:
Windows Media | QuickTime

More than 20 years ago, the United Methodist Council of Bishops introduced a pastoral letter called, “In Defense of Creation: The Nuclear Crisis and a Just Peace.” The 1986 letter was a clear message to all United Methodists about the possibility of nuclear war and the extinction of all life. It was an urgent reminder that this world is God’s creation, a sacred gift to be received and nurtured with respect, and an unconditional No to any use of nuclear weapons. The pastoral letter was supported by a foundation document and study materials.

In 2004, the General Conference authorized the Council of Bishops to update the 1986 document by “educating and encouraging the church, citizens and governments to seek things which lead to a just peace.”


The Bishops’ Task Force identified three interconnected global threats to God’s good creation:

• ongoing nuclear danger and the realities of violence, the
  
• degradation of the environment and global climate change, and
  
• pandemic poverty and disease in the struggles of a billion people for subsistence.
  

---

Overview

Overview

Overview for Bishops and Staff

Resources

Quick Start Guide

Quick Start Guide Inserts

In Defense of Creation Booklet

Invitation des Eveques

More

[bananas]

2. And a hat-tip to Christina MacPherson's Nuclear News website

where I read about the article: http://nuclear-news.net/2011/11/30/americas-evangelical-religions-condemn-nuclear-weapons/

Her theme for December is:

Peace on Earth to people of good will – theme for December 2011

With governments and media beholden to big corporations, and powerful bigoted people, the nuclear weapons bandwagon rolls on, with the absurdity of nuclear weapons production being seen as a “public good”, as a wonderful productive part of each country’s “Gross National Product”. A gross product indeed!



All this goes on accompanied by a lot of doublespeak - ”weapons for security” weapons for peace” – when it is becoming more apparent that there will be no winners in a nuclear conflict.

The entire world would be the loser – even in a “limited” nuclear conflict – as for example, between India and Pakistan. For one thing Climate Change would be instant – as nuclear explosions’ clouds would cut out the sulight for a long time.

But the entire world is the loser now, as with depleted uranium weapons used in Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Bosnia – spread their cancerous dust around the world.

Harvey Wassermann has warned USA, (and other countries) about the “warfare state” – in which the production of weapons is seen as an economic plus.

While people worldwide want peace, and especially, an end to nuclear weapons, governments seem quite unable and unwilling to act effectively towards nuclear disarmament, and the spread of nuclear weapons.

Non government peace movements have a long and noble history, and their work is now more critical than ever. Now, they are becoming more organised, and governments can no longer ignore their voices.

<snip>